From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ef079ff5a848a09
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of gaurds
Date: 1997/02/25
Message-ID: <dewar.856870011@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 221304588
References: <5dr7g6$o4j$1@news.iag.net> <01bc19d6$504842e0$fc00af88@godiva>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<> My professor claims that guarding select alternatives which won't ever
> contain a rendezvous (in that iteration of the select) is more efficient
> than just leaving them open. He said that that way the tasking executive
> won't have to check that paticular rendezvous. I'm not sure I bought this
> logic. It seems to me that there could be some implementations where it
> would actually be less efficient to do this, and it adds complexity to
the
> user program. (Which means errors).
>
> Anyway, I'd like to ask folks who have actually *written* tasking
> executives if my prof speaks the truth here.>>


This may or may not be true, but in any case, such guesses should not
influence coding style. You should use or not use guards depending on
what is clearer at the level of your program. Trying to guess which
of these two might be more efficient is unlikely to be a productive
way to spend time.